Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

[scott3x]

if 9/11 was an inside job then why would the government allow civilians to perform the cleanup?

Listen, leopold, I know you don't approve of the evidence I provide when it's from from 9/11 Research. However, you've provided absolutely no evidence that 9/11 Research isn't a credible site, while Headspin and I think it's quite good and even shaman_ has used it to back up his official story claims. Here is what they have to say concerning the cleanup in their WTC Steel Removal article:

WTC Steel Removal

The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1

why would the government allow filming of such cleanup?

After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed. I've told you this and you simply say that it didn't happen from the start. So what? I have never stated that every government official was in on the deception; far from it.

[scott3x]

I believe that some eyewitnesses may well have been lying even being in a position to see it, while many others may have been fooled into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the building, when in fact it was simply a matter of the explosion going off almost immediately after the plane went over the pentagon.

of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold what really happened.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ does more then provide a list; it interviews the relevant witnesses and captures the interviews on video.

[James R]

* sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *

That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.

It sounds to me like you haven't read any of the sticky threads that head this subforum. If you're going to moderate the forum, you really should familiarise yourself with its special format and rules.

While this particular debate may not follow the "rules of any debating society", that does not necessarily disqualify it from being a valid debate, especially according to the rules of the subforum.

If you take a look at previous debates, you will in fact find that several of them do closely follow a traditional debate format similar to that of virtually any debating society you'd care to name.

I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer informed criticism rather than uninformed tangential sniping, thanks Fraggle.

[scott3x]

The size of the plane is not in question, not by me at any rate.

because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.

On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.

[scott3x]

I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there.

”
again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".

So what? It seems that if you don't hear of someone catching the crooks red handed, it won't cut it for you. There's lots of evidence that suggests it was planted though:
Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon? - Suspicious plane debris...

you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?

That doesn't mean that any of them were in a position to see debris being planted.

[scott3x]

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:
The Attack on The Pentagon

The 911 Mystery Plane

The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II)

The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001

I have yet to do much more then skim them, but depending on the vigour of the discussion here, I may go further in the future.

who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?

When they represent evidence, I'd think that any person serious in finding out the truth.

i want to see your list of WITNESSES

Here's an excellent list of witnesses:
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

[scott3x]

7. Although the responding fire department reported that the fire was completely knocked down within about 10 minutes or so, obviously there was a large amount of jet fuel dispersed into the building because it was reported that fires still flared up during 60 hours or so. A jetliner carries a large amount of fuel, something like 10,000 gallons. If fires flared up for 60 hours, a large amount of fuel in the building had to have come from a large plane, not a smaller plane, or, no plane, as some people claim.

Incendiaries could have done it as well

.

a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

I've now gotten an answer as to why they didn't simply crash flight 77 into the pentagon:
Motive for flyover?

8. The official report says that DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified. How could this be true if some other plane, or, no plane, was involved?

Who did this official report?

you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted

I have never claimed to have any eye witnesses to airplane parts being planted. Uno -did- claim that an official report claimed that "DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified". For this reason, I think it's a perfectly valid question.

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.

you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.

That was the rule for the debate part. We're now in the discussion part and no such rule was stipulated for that part of it.

[leopold]

After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed.

i have no idea, but i do know that access to the site by civilians wasn't restricted during the early hours and days after the attack.
like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ does more then provide a list; it interviews the relevant witnesses and captures the interviews on video.

i looked for a list of witnesses but couldn't find any.

On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.

if i remember correctly the hole was about the location of where the right engine would have struck the building. the hole does look small though.

Here's an excellent list of witnesses:
Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum

a forum?

[scott3x]

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.

you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?

I already answered the question to Uno Hoo; I even did so in my own words; as a matter of fact, you're quoting my answer.

don't forget the proof part.

I don't need to prove where they are. I only need to offer solid evidence that the official story as to where they ended up has fatal flaws. As to theories as to what happened to the passengers, or even if there -were- passengers, there's a thread on the subject in Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
Where Might Be The Bodies (like Barbara Olsen)?, Claims (or theories) about victims' bodies?. I just now asked 2 questions in the thread to clarify why 2 different people believe in separate theories regarding this point.

I believe I've seen a better theory before, involving the plane being shot down in an ocean in what was supposed to be one of the war games going on that day, but I can't find it now..

[(Q)]

I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.

Scott created identical threads in two forums, what does that constitute in your opinion?

Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again.

Sorry, and you've seen that occuring here? Where?

And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.

The discussion never came out of the mud to begin with, Fraggle.

The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Good one, Frag!!!

Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded.

Yes, let's protect and coddle the wackos, nice work, Frag. That will really help in bringing back to science. Well done.

[leopold]

I don't need to prove where they are.
I only need to offer solid evidence that the official story as to where they ended up has fatal flaws.

well you made some excellent arguements in that regard EXCEPT for the list of witnesses that actuall y seen the jet fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
even a list of witnesses will do little good for the fact that their character cannot be ascertained. are they attention whores? are they pathological liars? are there cops and firemen that seen the flyover?

As to theories as to what happened to the passengers, or even if there -were- passengers, there's a thread on the subject in Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
Where Might Be The Bodies (like Barbara Olsen)?, Claims (or theories) about victims' bodies?. I just now asked 2 questions in the thread to clarify why 2 different people believe in separate theories regarding this point.

why not just fly the plane load of passengers into the building scott?
doesn't that make more sense than what you are proposing?
be honest with yourself scott, doesn't it make more sense to do tat?

my references earlier as to the cleanup and rescue efforts was in regards to WTC 1 and 2.

[scott3x]

Yes, let's protect and coddle the wackos, nice work, Frag. That will really help in bringing back to science. Well done.

I assume I'm one of the people you're labelling as a 'wacko'. I'm glad that Fraggle stepped in, but I'm not exactly feeling coddled by the people I'm actually debating. I thought I could do this, but I'm just beginning to think that the whole thing is too toxic right now. Perhaps I'll be able to address other points made here at some point in time, but not now.

[Syzygys]

I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us. I might read your links provided in this thread and I have a feeling this thread is going to be actually more interesting than the debate...

This whole flyover idea is plain silly, because of Occam's razor. Why not just let the plane hit whatever they can?(assuming it can reach an important target) What is the guarantee that the plane actually can make it to the Pentagon? Or it can go actually close enough to the "bombed" area??? Why complicate things when it isn't necessery???

And wouldn't there be a bunch of eyewitnesses, (specially after an explosion) stating that they saw a plane flying away???

There are some inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack, but this flyover theory just makes the rest look bad...

[Syzygys]

As a judge I have to give a draw though for the debaters. Scott had 2 points and the 2nd one was actually a good one and Uno completely failed to address it. The statistical probability of having the wargames randomly on the same day as the attack is probably around 1 to 1-200, assuming there are 1-2 this kind of wargames a year.

I generally agree with Scott that certain organizations (foreign secret services) and some people high up in the US administration knew about the upcoming attack, but it is a question just how much they knew (how many details) and one has to realize there isa huge difference between letting something happen and actively participating in it.

Just like PH, they let it happen, but they didn't actively participated in it. Why would they? They had the Arabs set up for that...

By the way one very good evidence for you Scott is the large option purchases in a German bank, that had a high ranked CIA guy as a former director. It is well documented, although not very well known... I don't believe in such a coincidence...

[leopold]

I'm glad that Fraggle stepped in, but I'm not exactly feeling coddled by the people I'm actually debating.

how would you like the debate to be served up? on fine china?

I thought I could do this, but I'm just beginning to think that the whole thing is too toxic right now.

in other words you really can't think of any good reason why the jet would fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
i also noticed that your last post did not include any witnesses stating the jet flew over the pentagon instead of into it.

[leopold]

As a judge I have to give a draw though for the debaters. Scott had 2 points and the 2nd one was actually a good one and Uno completely failed to address it. The statistical probability of having the wargames randomly on the same day as the attack is probably around 1 to 1-200, assuming there are 1-2 this kind of wargames a year.

the military is ALWAYS conducting readiness tests, all kinds of them.

I generally agree with Scott that certain organizations (foreign secret services) and some people high up in the US administration knew about the upcoming attack, but it is a question just how much they knew (how many details) and one has to realize there isa huge difference between letting something happen and actively participating in it.

there are always "bomb threats" being called into our airports by all manner of attention seekers. i assume this same scenario can be applied to the white house, so in this regard one could say the governmemt "knew" it.

[James R]

I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us.

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

[Read-Only]

The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.

Just my personal opinion - but I believe several others here agree with it: We've had ALL the 9/11 conspiracy threads we can stand! The proponents - mostly Scott - do nothing in them but regurgitate the same old tired arguments over and over again. It's VERY boring!! There's NOT a thing new that can possibly be added to them and keeping all these threads is nothing but a huge waste of space.

[James R]

Read-Only:

Apparently, there are plenty of members who still wish to participate in such discussions.

[Syzygys]

the military is ALWAYS conducting readiness tests, all kinds of them.

Always is a bit too much. But please post how many wargames were planned in 2001 where the notion was terrorists ovetaking an airplane. I bet there were no more than 2-3.....